Lockout Thread II

There is a direct correlation between the amount of revenue distribution to the lower revenue franchises, and the overall health of the league generally. Right now, there are a few teams in league that are making an absolute killing. There revenues and profits are enormous.

There are also many teams who do not generate significant amounts of revenue, and there are a few teams who are probably losing money, mostly in traditionally non-hockey markets. One partial solution to this problem is to redistribute a higher share of the profits the top few teams are making, which is a TON, to the teams who are struggling. The owners seem to have made some strides in the regard, although I am not sure if they have gone far enough. In addition, I think everyone can agree that the NHLPA's days of pulling in 57% of annual revenue are long gone, as every other sport has fallen in line to a more 50-50 split.

It seems to me that the NHLPA has come to grips with this, as they have moved down to a 50-50 split, which occurs in a somewhat rapid fashion. Thus, the players have already made concessions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in the future, that will now go into the pockets of the NHL. Pretty significant I would say. But that is not enough. They also need to rollback their current contracts, make it more difficult to reach UFA status, limit their negotiating rights when discussing future contract extensions, and plant a big fat kiss on Gary Bettman's forehead after they agree to a deal that is absolutely one-sided in every meaningful way. When you really stop and think about it, we would be playing hockey right now if the owners agreed to fund even MOST, not even all of the current contracts they voluntarily agreed to. It is funny to me that those on the owners side argue that it is the players fault being greedy, because the voluntary concessions they are making without asking for anything in return are not deep enough. They must give away MORE, otherwise they are just greedy millionaires. Sounds odd to me.

The league with the longest streak of labor peace is MLB. They also have the most generous revenue sharing program in all of Professional Sports, and were led for most of those years by one Donald Fehr. But he's the problem... Right?

There is a direct correlation between the amount of revenue distribution to the lower revenue franchises, and the overall health of the league generally. Right now, there are a few teams in league that are making an absolute killing. There revenues and profits are enormous.

There are also many teams who do not generate significant amounts of revenue, and there are a few teams who are probably losing money, mostly in traditionally non-hockey markets. One partial solution to this problem is to redistribute a higher share of the profits the top few teams are making, which is a TON, to the teams who are struggling. The owners seem to have made some strides in the regard, although I am not sure if they have gone far enough. In addition, I think everyone can agree that the NHLPA's days of pulling in 57% of annual revenue are long gone, as every other sport has fallen in line to a more 50-50 split.

It seems to me that the NHLPA has come to grips with this, as they have moved down to a 50-50 split, which occurs in a somewhat rapid fashion. Thus, the players have already made concessions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in the future, that will now go into the pockets of the NHL. Pretty significant I would say. But that is not enough. They also need to rollback their current contracts, make it more difficult to reach UFA status, limit their negotiating rights when discussing future contract extensions, and plant a big fat kiss on Gary Bettman's forehead after they agree to a deal that is absolutely one-sided in every meaningful way. When you really stop and think about it, we would be playing hockey right now if the owners agreed to fund even MOST, not even all of the current contracts they voluntarily agreed to. It is funny to me that those on the owners side argue that it is the players fault being greedy, because the voluntary concessions they are making without asking for anything in return are not deep enough. They must give away MORE, otherwise they are just greedy millionaires. Sounds odd to me.

The league with the longest streak of labor peace is MLB. They also have the most generous revenue sharing program in all of Professional Sports, and were led for most of those years by one Donald Fehr. But he's the problem... Right?

This is exactly what I have been saying for two months, except you have put it in a very clean, elegant and easy to read manner. Thanks.

There is a direct correlation between the amount of revenue distribution to the lower revenue franchises, and the overall health of the league generally. Right now, there are a few teams in league that are making an absolute killing. There revenues and profits are enormous.

There are also many teams who do not generate significant amounts of revenue, and there are a few teams who are probably losing money, mostly in traditionally non-hockey markets. One partial solution to this problem is to redistribute a higher share of the profits the top few teams are making, which is a TON, to the teams who are struggling. The owners seem to have made some strides in the regard, although I am not sure if they have gone far enough. In addition, I think everyone can agree that the NHLPA's days of pulling in 57% of annual revenue are long gone, as every other sport has fallen in line to a more 50-50 split.

It seems to me that the NHLPA has come to grips with this, as they have moved down to a 50-50 split, which occurs in a somewhat rapid fashion. Thus, the players have already made concessions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in the future, that will now go into the pockets of the NHL. Pretty significant I would say. But that is not enough. They also need to rollback their current contracts, make it more difficult to reach UFA status, limit their negotiating rights when discussing future contract extensions, and plant a big fat kiss on Gary Bettman's forehead after they agree to a deal that is absolutely one-sided in every meaningful way. When you really stop and think about it, we would be playing hockey right now if the owners agreed to fund even MOST, not even all of the current contracts they voluntarily agreed to. It is funny to me that those on the owners side argue that it is the players fault being greedy, because the voluntary concessions they are making without asking for anything in return are not deep enough. They must give away MORE, otherwise they are just greedy millionaires. Sounds odd to me.

The league with the longest streak of labor peace is MLB. They also have the most generous revenue sharing program in all of Professional Sports, and were led for most of those years by one Donald Fehr. But he's the problem... Right?

Sigh. There has not been one SINGLE proposal from the NHL rolling back salaries. I repeat NOT ONE. The contract rollback crap is a MYTH, created by the PA to gain sympathy since it's an easy attack for them to say "look the NHL is not honouring their contracts".

The think that they will lose money in escrow due to the rollback. Now remember one thing, escrow is NOT new. Escrow is merely a way to make sure players get their right percentage of the revenue. It was in the last CBA. If revenues at any point in the last CBA has frozen or gone down, the players would equally have lost money, and the owners would not be "honouring those contracts", right? By their logic, apparently.

Now you drop the players immediately to 50% from 57%, you are almost guaranteed to lose some money in escrow. Again, escrow could have hit the players in the last CBA, but didn't. So now they finally might feel the brunt of something they agreed to in the first place, it's "not honouring contracts".

Anyways, so yes the escrow would have hit them. Fine the NHL says, what we will do is guarantee that escrow WILL NOT effect these contracts. That's what the "Make Whole" provision is. It guarantees that any contracts in place at the time of the lockout will be paid out 100%, even if escrow in this year takes some of that away, it will be paid in following years. Now with the lastest edition of "Make Whole" proposed by the owners, that would have taken a bit out of future years %, but they had said they were willing to move on this issue.

So in EVERY SINGLE SENSE OF THE WORD, the owners agreed to pay out 100% of the value ALL current contracts.

As for the revenue sharing issue, it has never been anything more than a ploy by the PA to distract from the real issue, the money they receive. Even their original proposal did have a huge overhaul to revenue sharing that they claimed, they like to use fuzzy math (so does the NHL as well though, you gotta work to look through the ******** numbers both sides put out). But the NHL quickly gave on that issue, and you don't hear about it anymore since it is really minor issue. Old agreement was 150 million per year, NHLPA proposed 250, NHL and PA seem happy at 220 million NHL last proposed.

How does someone think that letang is better than Doughty. The excuse that Doughty on played well in the playoffs and not the season is stupid. It's like they forget that Doughty was chosen second overall. It's like saying Mike tyson is a bad boxer cause he lost a single fight while hebwon tons before that one bad fight.

There is a direct correlation between the amount of revenue distribution to the lower revenue franchises, and the overall health of the league generally. Right now, there are a few teams in league that are making an absolute killing. There revenues and profits are enormous.

There are also many teams who do not generate significant amounts of revenue, and there are a few teams who are probably losing money, mostly in traditionally non-hockey markets. One partial solution to this problem is to redistribute a higher share of the profits the top few teams are making, which is a TON, to the teams who are struggling. The owners seem to have made some strides in the regard, although I am not sure if they have gone far enough. In addition, I think everyone can agree that the NHLPA's days of pulling in 57% of annual revenue are long gone, as every other sport has fallen in line to a more 50-50 split.

It seems to me that the NHLPA has come to grips with this, as they have moved down to a 50-50 split, which occurs in a somewhat rapid fashion. Thus, the players have already made concessions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in the future, that will now go into the pockets of the NHL. Pretty significant I would say. But that is not enough. They also need to rollback their current contracts, make it more difficult to reach UFA status, limit their negotiating rights when discussing future contract extensions, and plant a big fat kiss on Gary Bettman's forehead after they agree to a deal that is absolutely one-sided in every meaningful way. When you really stop and think about it, we would be playing hockey right now if the owners agreed to fund even MOST, not even all of the current contracts they voluntarily agreed to. It is funny to me that those on the owners side argue that it is the players fault being greedy, because the voluntary concessions they are making without asking for anything in return are not deep enough. They must give away MORE, otherwise they are just greedy millionaires. Sounds odd to me.

The league with the longest streak of labor peace is MLB. They also have the most generous revenue sharing program in all of Professional Sports, and were led for most of those years by one Donald Fehr. But he's the problem... Right?

No, wrong. I suggest you head over to the Business of Hockey area and read some of the posts over there. There are some knowledgable folks that post based on the reality of the economics.

No, wrong. I suggest you head over to the Business of Hockey area and read some of the posts over there. There are some knowledgable folks that post based on the reality of the economics.

Perhaps you could have provided your opinion or insight, instead of deferring to someplace else. The reality is the NHL has offered approximately 200 Million Dollars as part of a "make whole" provision to try and recoup the losses in contract dollars that will be incurred by dropping the players share of HRR down to close to 50% in year one. However, the make whole provision they are proposing would not recoup player salaries completely.. There would be a "doughnut hole," per say, which would effectively mean a salary rollback on current player contracts. You are not honestly arguing that the PA's goal with the "make whole" provision is to provide them with effectively more compensation then what their current contracts say they are entitled to..right? The real problem is the NHL has offered a salary rollback in the guise of escrow, effectively lowering current contract values without instituting an off the top cut in their salaries.

It is neither unreasonable, nor greedy, for the players to want the owners to honor contracts they just agreed to less than 6 months ago. As an owner, how can you go out and sign players to 100 million dollar contracts, cry wolf about it less than 6 months later, and ask the players to reduce the compensation they just negotiated with a willing partner who held celebratory press conferences about the big "score" their team just acquired. Makes no sense.

Perhaps you could have provided your opinion or insight, instead of deferring to someplace else. The reality is the NHL has offered approximately 200 Million Dollars as part of a "make whole" provision to try and recoup the losses in contract dollars that will be incurred by dropping the players share of HRR down to close to 50% in year one. However, the make whole provision they are proposing would not recoup player salaries completely.. There would be a "doughnut hole," per say, which would effectively mean a salary rollback on current player contracts. You are not honestly arguing that the PA's goal with the "make whole" provision is to provide them with effectively more compensation then what their current contracts say they are entitled to..right? The real problem is the NHL has offered a salary rollback in the guise of escrow, effectively lowering current contract values without instituting an off the top cut in their salaries.

It is neither unreasonable, nor greedy, for the players to want the owners to honor contracts they just agreed to less than 6 months ago. As an owner, how can you go out and sign players to 100 million dollar contracts, cry wolf about it less than 6 months later, and ask the players to reduce the compensation they just negotiated with a willing partner who held celebratory press conferences about the big "score" their team just acquired. Makes no sense.

Perhaps you could have provided your opinion or insight, instead of deferring to someplace else. The reality is the NHL has offered approximately 200 Million Dollars as part of a "make whole" provision to try and recoup the losses in contract dollars that will be incurred by dropping the players share of HRR down to close to 50% in year one. However, the make whole provision they are proposing would not recoup player salaries completely.. There would be a "doughnut hole," per say, which would effectively mean a salary rollback on current player contracts. You are not honestly arguing that the PA's goal with the "make whole" provision is to provide them with effectively more compensation then what their current contracts say they are entitled to..right? The real problem is the NHL has offered a salary rollback in the guise of escrow, effectively lowering current contract values without instituting an off the top cut in their salaries.

It is neither unreasonable, nor greedy, for the players to want the owners to honor contracts they just agreed to less than 6 months ago. As an owner, how can you go out and sign players to 100 million dollar contracts, cry wolf about it less than 6 months later, and ask the players to reduce the compensation they just negotiated with a willing partner who held celebratory press conferences about the big "score" their team just acquired. Makes no sense.

You are not correct
The make whole the nhl wants would mean the teams would have two years to get their teams under the cap. There is no "rollback" of signed contracts. The PA wants to keep the cap artificially high by having 4 years to get under the cap.

The owners original proposal included a 24% salary rollback, so I am not quite sure where you are getting your information from. The last offer from the NHL provided for 149 million to be paid in the first year, and 62 million in the second, in order to "try" and fulfill existing contracts after the players agree to a 50-50 split in annual revenue. However, for each % point drop in annual revenue will equal a 33 million dollar decline to the players. Thus, 7%= 231 million dollars, times the 2 years, equals 462 million dollars. The players would be receiving 462 million dollars less over the first 2 years, with the owners offering 211 million to try and make this up. Thus, there will be a rollback in salaries, the math does not add up. Is there something I am missing in all of this? You cannot say the owners have not, when they have, and are not, when they are, an annual salary reduction when they clearly, and absolutely are.

Furthermore, had the PA accepted the deal at the start of the year, or at least the last ditch one to save the 82 game season, if include a reasonable estimate of revenue growth (3% from previous season) the damage that dropping 7% would have been minimal. Now though...

The owners original proposal included a 24% salary rollback, so I am not quite sure where you are getting your information from. The last offer from the NHL provided for 149 million to be paid in the first year, and 62 million in the second, in order to "try" and fulfill existing contracts after the players agree to a 50-50 split in annual revenue. However, for each % point drop in annual revenue will equal a 33 million dollar decline to the players. Thus, 7%= 231 million dollars, times the 2 years, equals 462 million dollars. The players would be receiving 462 million dollars less over the first 2 years, with the owners offering 211 million to try and make this up. Thus, there will be a rollback in salaries, the math does not add up. Is there something I am missing in all of this? You cannot say the owners have not, when they have, and are not, when they are, an annual salary reduction when they clearly, and absolutely are.

No it didn't. More disinformation from the PA. That was a number the players made up to estimate the players total compensation (including new contracts, not effecting current contracts) decline based on unrealistic growth figures.

All of your numbers incorrectly interpreted. You are talking about total compensation to the players, as if they would still be getting the 57%. The players % part of the pie is going to shrink, that's a given, the PA has agreed to this. The numbers you are quoting are not effecting current contracts. You are assuming that revenues stay flat for two years? That has never happened. If the players drop to 50%, they would have had a reduction in total compensation in year 1, and perhaps year 2, depending on revenue growth. Therefore it was likely many of the current contractions were going to be hit by escrow. The make whole provision was designed to prevent the loss of money to escrow from current contracts during that time when total real money compensation was lower than current values.

The owners original proposal included a 24% salary rollback, so I am not quite sure where you are getting your information from. The last offer from the NHL provided for 149 million to be paid in the first year, and 62 million in the second, in order to "try" and fulfill existing contracts after the players agree to a 50-50 split in annual revenue. However, for each % point drop in annual revenue will equal a 33 million dollar decline to the players. Thus, 7%= 231 million dollars, times the 2 years, equals 462 million dollars. The players would be receiving 462 million dollars less over the first 2 years, with the owners offering 211 million to try and make this up. Thus, there will be a rollback in salaries, the math does not add up. Is there something I am missing in all of this? You cannot say the owners have not, when they have, and are not, when they are, an annual salary reduction when they clearly, and absolutely are.

That's just so ridiculously wrong it's rated below facepalm level.
Sorry boy, take a breath and educate yourself on this manner please before you post about the CBA offers again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield

He conveniently ignored my post where I explained this...

Furthermore, had the PA accepted the deal at the start of the year, or at least the last ditch one to save the 82 game season, if include a reasonable estimate of revenue growth (3% from previous season) the damage that dropping 7% would have been minimal. Now though...

Not the only poster that does this though...
...Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the make whole gets pulled off the table after the next meetings.

Perhaps you could have provided your opinion or insight, instead of deferring to someplace else. The reality is the NHL has offered approximately 200 Million Dollars as part of a "make whole" provision to try and recoup the losses in contract dollars that will be incurred by dropping the players share of HRR down to close to 50% in year one. However, the make whole provision they are proposing would not recoup player salaries completely.. There would be a "doughnut hole," per say, which would effectively mean a salary rollback on current player contracts. You are not honestly arguing that the PA's goal with the "make whole" provision is to provide them with effectively more compensation then what their current contracts say they are entitled to..right? The real problem is the NHL has offered a salary rollback in the guise of escrow, effectively lowering current contract values without instituting an off the top cut in their salaries.

It is neither unreasonable, nor greedy, for the players to want the owners to honor contracts they just agreed to less than 6 months ago. As an owner, how can you go out and sign players to 100 million dollar contracts, cry wolf about it less than 6 months later, and ask the players to reduce the compensation they just negotiated with a willing partner who held celebratory press conferences about the big "score" their team just acquired. Makes no sense.

It makes as much sense as said players crying about lost money when everyone of those contracts had huge guaranteed bonus money in them. Parise and Suter are both getting $25m in signing bonus money the first 3 years. Thats more than enough to cover what ever salary they would have lost due to situation considering their base salary for the next 2 years is $2m and jumps up to $6 in year three. A bit hypocritical for either of those guys to come out criticize the proposals when they arent going to be very effected by it.

The owners original proposal included a 24% salary rollback, so I am not quite sure where you are getting your information from. The last offer from the NHL provided for 149 million to be paid in the first year, and 62 million in the second, in order to "try" and fulfill existing contracts after the players agree to a 50-50 split in annual revenue. However, for each % point drop in annual revenue will equal a 33 million dollar decline to the players. Thus, 7%= 231 million dollars, times the 2 years, equals 462 million dollars. The players would be receiving 462 million dollars less over the first 2 years, with the owners offering 211 million to try and make this up. Thus, there will be a rollback in salaries, the math does not add up. Is there something I am missing in all of this? You cannot say the owners have not, when they have, and are not, when they are, an annual salary reduction when they clearly, and absolutely are.

Your numbers are not correct, this has been explained to you in detail post #228 (which you ignored, cause it proves you wrong).

Although I don't fault the players for trying to get a guaranteed number out of this small revenue pie.

About the 100 million dollar contract's everyone is crying about. That is why the agents for (suter,paris,weber) got 20 million up front bonus money.

None of those guys have a right to cry about their contract. Those three idiots should be praising their agents. They won't feel the revenue/escrow hit AT ALL.

Also if this drags out longer, the Make whole deal on the table will be pulled.

No it didn't. More disinformation from the PA. That was a number the players made up to estimate the players total compensation (including new contracts, not effecting current contracts) decline based on unrealistic growth figures.

All of your numbers incorrectly interpreted. You are talking about total compensation to the players, as if they would still be getting the 57%. The players % part of the pie is going to shrink, that's a given, the PA has agreed to this. The numbers you are quoting are not effecting current contracts. You are assuming that revenues stay flat for two years? That has never happened. If the players drop to 50%, they would have had a reduction in total compensation in year 1, and perhaps year 2, depending on revenue growth. Therefore it was likely many of the current contractions were going to be hit by escrow. The make whole provision was designed to prevent the loss of money to escrow from current contracts during that time when total real money compensation was lower than current values.

A few things I suppose. First, the owners initial proposal back in July would have seen the players share drop from 57% down to an effective 43% share of HRR in Year 1. So yes, I suppose it was not quite a 24% rollback, instead it was more like a 19-20% rollback, since at that time the NHL was not offering any sort of "make whole" provision. Thus, it WAS a salary rollback, in every sense of the word. Second, I am not sure how you can really say that NHL salaries will not be affected by a 7% drop in HRR % in year one. The owners entire make whole provision is contingent on a 5% annual growth in league revenues. Which may happen, may not. The PA counters with having 1.8 billion dollars in the pot, in order to guarantee all existing contracts are honored. Neither side is innocent in all of this. Both sides are trying to find ways to manipulate the other party, there is no doubt about that. By the way, those "signing bonuses" that were given out were given voluntarily, and without force. Some of you are making it seem like these players were holding these owners up against their will. Think about it this way. If you owned a business, and you thought the business was struggling, and were worried about its future and profitability, would you then decide to go out and hire new employees at a very very substantial cost? You absolutely would not. It wouldn't make any sense to, correct? That is what a lot of these owners' want the public to believe. That somehow their thirst for fielding a competitive team has gotten the best of their financial judgment. I'm not buying it.

A few things I suppose. First, the owners initial proposal back in July would have seen the players share drop from 57% down to an effective 43% share of HRR in Year 1. So yes, I suppose it was not quite a 24% rollback, instead it was more like a 19-20% rollback, since at that time the NHL was not offering any sort of "make whole" provision. Thus, it WAS a salary rollback, in every sense of the word. Second, I am not sure how you can really say that NHL salaries will not be affected by a 7% drop in HRR % in year one. The owners entire make whole provision is contingent on a 5% annual growth in league revenues. Which may happen, may not. The PA counters with having 1.8 billion dollars in the pot, in order to guarantee all existing contracts are honored. Neither side is innocent in all of this. Both sides are trying to find ways to manipulate the other party, there is no doubt about that. By the way, those "signing bonuses" that were given out were given voluntarily, and without force. Some of you are making it seem like these players were holding these owners up against their will. Think about it this way. If you owned a business, and you thought the business was struggling, and were worried about its future and profitability, would you then decide to go out and hire new employees at a very very substantial cost? You absolutely would not. It wouldn't make any sense to, correct? That is what a lot of these owners' want the public to believe. That somehow their thirst for fielding a competitive team has gotten the best of their financial judgment. I'm not buying it.

The Bonus money was a requirement to even meet with Parise ,Suter. I will find you the link. His agent made that a requirement(to protect them from the CBA).

So yes they did hold the negotiating rights hostage. Although I would blame the agents more than the players for that.

Also the first NHL offer, everyone knows that wasn't a serious offer. So trying to frame your argument around it, is not going to convince anyone.

Like wise the NHLPA's offers (all of them) are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The only offer they have put fourth that is even in the realm of reality, is the last one they just submitted.

Both sides are complete tools. Neither side is serious about playing hockey. Both want to play the victim, both are dumb as rocks.

Also it's not about being competitive. Most of the owners want to see a return on investment.

A few things I suppose. First, the owners initial proposal back in July would have seen the players share drop from 57% down to an effective 43% share of HRR in Year 1. So yes, I suppose it was not quite a 24% rollback, instead it was more like a 19-20% rollback, since at that time the NHL was not offering any sort of "make whole" provision. Thus, it WAS a salary rollback, in every sense of the word.

Except, you know, the literal sense. It was a readjustment of the %, contract values are not changing. You are assuming a)revenue stays flat, b)teams continue to overspend versus the expected midpoint, to come up with your nice number. Not to mention it's a first offer, not buying yourself anything here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyCA

Second, I am not sure how you can really say that NHL salaries will not be affected by a 7% drop in HRR % in year one. The owners entire make whole provision is contingent on a 5% annual growth in league revenues. Which may happen, may not. The PA counters with having 1.8 billion dollars in the pot, in order to guarantee all existing contracts are honored.

Try REREADING MY POST. You what, forget, I'll highlight it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield

If the players drop to 50%, they would have had a reduction in total compensation in year 1, and perhaps year 2, depending on revenue growth.

My my, isn't that amazing. I DID say OVERALL compensation is what is going to go down. And yes, they are factoring in a growth factor. A reasonable one THAT HAS BEEN BEATEN EVERY SINGLE SEASON SINCE THE LAST LOCKOUT. To say that wouldn't have happened had they gotten back on the ice in time for an 82 game is going against all evidence.

By the way, those nice numbers the PA was tossing your way about how much money they are "losing". Yeah those use a 9% growth factor, something that has only been beaten twice since the last lockout, both times due to in no small part extenuating circumstances that will not repeat (much larger new TV deal with NBC Sports and the ATL to WPG relocation).

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyCA

Neither side is innocent in all of this. Both sides are trying to find ways to manipulate the other party, there is no doubt about that.

Well something we can agree on. The owners are not saints, they hold plenty of blame as well. I'm just trying to clear up some myths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyCA

By the way, those "signing bonuses" that were given out were given voluntarily, and without force. Some of you are making it seem like these players were holding these owners up against their will.

Um, yeah I never said anything about the signing bonuses. Both sides wanted to protect their assets pre-lockout, those signings are fine. The pre-lockout signings are nothing but optics problems. Smoke and Mirrors. They have nothing to do with the real issues, I hate that they keep being brought up. One note, the owners are not trying to get that money back either, I just don't get the problem? That money is in their hands, Minnesota and the other teams are not taking it out of their pockets, nor are they complaining that they had to shell out big signing bonuses compared to other signings in past years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyCA

Think about it this way. If you owned a business, and you thought the business was struggling, and were worried about its future and profitability, would you then decide to go out and hire new employees at a very very substantial cost? You absolutely would not. It wouldn't make any sense to, correct? That is what a lot of these owners' want the public to believe. That somehow their thirst for fielding a competitive team has gotten the best of their financial judgment. I'm not buying it.

OPTICS, OPTICS, OPTICS. Nothing ****ing real in those signings. These guys were going get signed, whether it's before or AFTER the lockout. The owners had to sign these guys to what was market fair deals under the old CBA, since they couldn't collude to keep those deals down pre-lockout could they? Was that the solution you prefer, the owners collude to keep those deals down?

It makes no ****ing difference when those deals were signed. Not to mention the entire idea of the make whole provision is to ensure that those contracts signed with those bad optics are guaranteed. So in reality, all the players that signed pre-lockout are going to benefit hugely compared to the Subbans and Benns who failed to sign and now will likely be looking at teams with less cap space, therefore reduced contracts.

The Bonus money was a requirement to even meet with Parise ,Suter. I will find you the link. His agent made that a requirement(to protect them from the CBA).

So yes they did hold the negotiating rights hostage. Although I would blame the agents more than the players for that.

Also the first NHL offer, everyone knows that wasn't a serious offer. So trying to frame your argument around it, is not going to convince anyone.

Like wise the NHLPA's offers (all of them) are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The only offer they have put fourth that is even in the realm of reality, is the last one they just submitted.

Both sides are complete tools. Neither side is serious about playing hockey. Both want to play the victim, both are dumb as rocks.

Also it's not about being competitive. Most of the owners want to see a return on investment.

Just cause you own a sports team, doesn't mean you should lose money.

If that were the cause, their wouldn't be ANY sport leagues.

YES. That is my point. Why would a league owner hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in new contracts, if they believed their business was in such terrible shape. I wouldn't do that. Would you? I think I made that point pretty clear in my previous response.

Second. You cannot say the NHL has never made a proposal with a salary rollback because the proposal which contained a salary rollback doesn't count. What was it then? This a multi-billion dollar industry, every proposal counts. Although I would agree with you, they made what even they knew to be just an absurd opening offer, but that doesn't change the fact that they offered it; and I would argue that has derailed the talks from the outset. Instead of extending an olive branch to the union, after they got pretty much everything they wanted during the last CBA negotiations, they instead tried to make it clear from the outset that they were going for more.

The fact is, we currently have no NHL hockey for a couple reasons. First, the owners were unable to control themselves and their general managers, and allowed salaries to inflate to all time highs. Second, the owners who make all the money do not want to share with the owners who are in tough markets. So, they are trying to make that up by trying to squeeze every last drop out of the players', banking on the fact that the longer this goes, at some point they will cave in to all their demands. They do not care about the fans. They are assuming we will all magically forget after this is all over. Guess we will see about that.

YES. That is my point. Why would a league owner hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in new contracts, if they believed their business was in such terrible shape. I wouldn't do that. Would you? I think I made that point pretty clear in my previous response.

Second. You cannot say the NHL has never made a proposal with a salary rollback because the proposal which contained a salary rollback doesn't count. What was it then? This a multi-billion dollar industry, every proposal counts. Although I would agree with you, they made what even they knew to be just an absurd opening offer, but that doesn't change the fact that they offered it; and I would argue that has derailed the talks from the outset. Instead of extending an olive branch to the union, after they got pretty much everything they wanted during the last CBA negotiations, they instead tried to make it clear from the outset that they were going for more.

The fact is, we currently have no NHL hockey for a couple reasons. First, the owners were unable to control themselves and their general managers, and allowed salaries to inflate to all time highs. Second, the owners who make all the money do not want to share with the owners who are in tough markets. So, they are trying to make that up by trying to squeeze every last drop out of the players', banking on the fact that the longer this goes, at some point they will cave in to all their demands. They do not care about the fans. They are assuming we will all magically forget after this is all over. Guess we will see about that.

The average NHL fan (Season ticket holder) will forget about it. That is why both sides, are not serious about playing Hockey AT ALL.

The NHLPA is just as much to blame for not having hockey right now.

The sad part is , guys like Stoll( majority of the NHLPA)are getting royal screwed. He can't make up that 3mill he was suppose to earn this year.

Also it's another year off his career (in his prime). If I was Stoll, I would be losing my mind right now.

Stoll would have been better off playing at 47% HHR. The amount of money they are fighting over, won't cover the 3 mill Stoll is about to lose this season.

Except, you know, the literal sense. It was a readjustment of the %, contract values are not changing. You are assuming a)revenue stays flat, b)teams continue to overspend versus the expected midpoint, to come up with your nice number. Not to mention it's a first offer, not buying yourself anything here.

Try REREADING MY POST. You what, forget, I'll highlight it.

My my, isn't that amazing. I DID say OVERALL compensation is what is going to go down. And yes, they are factoring in a growth factor. A reasonable one THAT HAS BEEN BEATEN EVERY SINGLE SEASON SINCE THE LAST LOCKOUT. To say that wouldn't have happened had they gotten back on the ice in time for an 82 game is going against all evidence.

By the way, those nice numbers the PA was tossing your way about how much money they are "losing". Yeah those use a 9% growth factor, something that has only been beaten twice since the last lockout, both times due to in no small part extenuating circumstances that will not repeat (much larger new TV deal with NBC Sports and the ATL to WPG relocation).

Well something we can agree on. The owners are not saints, they hold plenty of blame as well. I'm just trying to clear up some myths.

Um, yeah I never said anything about the signing bonuses. Both sides wanted to protect their assets pre-lockout, those signings are fine. The pre-lockout signings are nothing but optics problems. Smoke and Mirrors. They have nothing to do with the real issues, I hate that they keep being brought up. One note, the owners are not trying to get that money back either, I just don't get the problem? That money is in their hands, Minnesota and the other teams are not taking it out of their pockets, nor are they complaining that they had to shell out big signing bonuses compared to other signings in past years.

OPTICS, OPTICS, OPTICS. Nothing ****ing real in those signings. These guys were going get signed, whether it's before or AFTER the lockout. The owners had to sign these guys to what was market fair deals under the old CBA, since they couldn't collude to keep those deals down pre-lockout could they? Was that the solution you prefer, the owners collude to keep those deals down?

It makes no ****ing difference when those deals were signed. Not to mention the entire idea of the make whole provision is to ensure that those contracts signed with those bad optics are guaranteed. So in reality, all the players that signed pre-lockout are going to benefit hugely compared to the Subbans and Benns who failed to sign and now will likely be looking at teams with less cap space, therefore reduced contracts.

Pretty sure your wasting your time.

Some people just assume it's the Really Rich guys fault. No matter what.

Then people wonder why the price of EVERYTHING goes up, and said Rich guy doesn't want to hire you.

Question for people, when was the last time a poor person hired you ?

Also I can't believe people still think Owners control Player contracts and prices.

NEWS FLASH THEY NEVER HAVE OR WILL. As long as Professional Athletes have unions; their salary WILL ALWAYS INCREASE.

That's not a bad thing, but to sit here and say owners are solely responsible for player contracts is just lunacy.